Meet Sameer Wankhede NCB Officer Behind the Cruise Drugs Bust - Page 7

The speed with which some of you concede your position in a debate/discussion is astounding! It is as though you are not used to even a little pushback to your thought process, neither from external sources, nor (unfortunately) from your own mental faculties. 

Of course you are entitled to your opinions/groupthink. But if you make a post that starts off with an accusation that Wankhede was extorting money from drug dealers, at least make an attempt, even if feeble, to justify your position. Use some sources, build a case, give others an opportunity to challenge your case. On a forum meant for Debates, you act as though you can’t fathom why some people are disputing what apparently are non-rational opinions devoid of reason.

Originally posted by: CriticusExpert

Oh my bad ....ok so you are the decider of where posts go? then fix it, this must be the third rate PR- low rung, left over trolls pool, where gossip is made up & blinds created but since they are low rung there is no ability to counter argue so no opposing opinion is allowed?  lest it cause brain aneurysms.... no problem by me if you move it.

you started off by palming off your opinions as if they were proven facts and manna from heaven. They were only your theories, and wild ones at that if you ask us. Need to differentiate between fact and what is fiction at this stage, bud. 😆

Yeah...sure...Mr. Wankhede is innocent until proven guilty...

However, will he ever have to face court???!!!

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

The speed with which some of you concede your position in a debate/discussion is astounding! It is as though you are not used to even a little pushback to your thought process, neither from external sources, nor (unfortunately) from your own mental faculties. 

Of course you are entitled to your opinions/groupthink. But if you make a post that starts off with an accusation that Wankhede was extorting money from drug dealers, at least make an attempt, even if feeble, to justify your position. Use some sources, build a case, give others an opportunity to challenge your case. On a forum meant for Debates, you act as though you can’t fathom why some people are disputing what apparently are non-rational opinions devoid of reason.

Yes and Yes! I most certainly am entitled to my opinion which is not up for debate/discussion, I do not concede I simply admit it is set in stone...pushing is useless, I just share my opinion  on your meet and greet in a benevolent manner..ain't I nice?...Of course it is up to those who read to judge it, dissect it, vivisect it or ignore it (at their own peril and will). Open forums work like that, you can certainly debate away all you like, just because I share my opinion does not stop yours, but please remember to keep to the topic and keep the personal attacks and descriptions of my motivation or reasoning out of the debate, just for propriety sake of course, because while to me it makes no difference how you view what I write and I may have about two cents worth to say about your opinion, it is irrelevant to the topic, as you can see because in your own two paragraphs you conveniently veer away from Mr. Wankhede; the topic of the post to focus on me and said nothing about him. I remind you it is his moral turpitude that is in discussion not my rationale.  

Originally posted by: CriticusExpert

I most certainly am entitled to my opinion which is not up for debate/discussion,

You are absolutely wrong in your assumption that anything you post here in DM is not up for debate. Everything you post here is up for debate. You may check with the mod if you are so inclined.

Originally posted by: CriticusExpert

you conveniently veer away from Mr. Wankhede; the topic of the post to focus on me and said nothing about him. I remind you it is his moral turpitude that is in discussion not my rationale.  

I don’t have to say anything about him, all I have to say is that you are wrong in what you said about him. After that point, if you have anything to backup the original nonsense you posted, you would do it. Otherwise, for propriety’s sake, you would not waste others’ time with more nonsense that in no way addresses your original post.

Hope the rules of the debate are clearer to you now.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

You are absolutely wrong in your assumption that anything you post here in DM is not up for debate. Everything you post here is up for debate. You may check with the mod if you are so inclined.

I don’t have to say anything about him, all I have to say is that you are wrong in what you said about him. After that point, if you have anything to backup the original nonsense you posted, you would do it. Otherwise, for propriety’s sake, you would not waste others’ time with more nonsense that in no way addresses your original post.

Hope the rules of the debate are clearer to you now.

mmmK. No, I do not have to check with the Mods, the rules are clear.  Now, Let me repeat it:  Wankhede IS corrupt, he was corrupt long before the Cordelia Cruise Debacle blew up in his face and is up to his dumbo flipping ears in "stuff that ain't right" for an " upstanding agency Officer" how much will never really be known because after a while it all becomes a tangled string, corrupt is corrupt. Period. He was not acting alone but how rogue was he? that we will yet have to find, the outcome will tell.  I am sure damage control is underway and there may be a lot of pissed off people wanting to smack him on those dumbo ears of his for ruining a profitable thing with his antics. Right NOW he is a problem and a pain in the nuts not only for those who may have been supporting him, BUT he is a huge embarrassment and a stain for the agency, it's credibility and the YES! believe it, the honest people who are part of it.   No amount of gaslighting, or hiding or corruption to cover the corruption will erase what the public saw unfold in a very public way and people  just know a lot of it was incorrect, because the end does NOT justify the means.  My fervent hope is that he is tossed out to fry so he can be a lesson to others. I say hope because nothing in this life is guaranteed,  in particular when there is knee deep muck and cheap, very cheap humans for sale.                                           

It is not my headache to show you any evidence here no matter how much you change the subject or try to focus on my opinion to defend his lack of morals or stomp your foot while quoting debate rules and say I have to come in here with a thousand and one evidentiary details to counter your "I don't have to say anything about him...blah...blah" You see I did have something to say: He is CORRUPT.  You want to disprove my claim then debate away, but you cannot NOT allow my opinion,  see how  simple that is...I am just the faceless opinion of thousands of minds who see the obvious. 

*Yawn!* You are lucky that other than profanity, the mods on DM allow all kinds of idiocy including batty cock and bull stories. But, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat your asinine statements, you can’t prove, as of today, that Wankhede is corrupt. 

BTW, even a middle schooler would know that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff or the party pressing the charges. That’s debating 101. You must be mentally stunted if you think I will attempt to prove that Wankhede is NOT corrupt! You might as well ask me to prove that a unicorn doesn’t exist! 

Originally posted by: CriticusExpert

 I am just the faceless opinion of thousands of minds who see the obvious. 

Minds? 😂 Using the term loosely I see! Also, Thousands is an exaggeration no? You and your friends on IF won’t exceed 30, and I am being generous. Or, are we counting those on Nawab Malik’s payroll too in your thousands?

One can bet that thousands of minds isn't an exaggeration if you don't (sarcastically) limit what Criticus Expert expressed here to the India Forums...and unfortunately, Mr. Wankhede is just another example for a system that is prone to corruption.

Being innocent until proven guilty doesn't fit for Mr. Wankhede as he isn't innocent...he wasn't educated to be honest...his father already profited from his position to act against rules involving his son in a scheme to make money aside (the bar-restaurant-hotel)...it's a proven fact.

It's also a proven fact that he ordered other officers to make witnesses sign blank papers.

It is also a proven fact, that there were inaccuracies in the way Aryan was implicated in an alleged conspiracy to keep him in custody.

There are other proven facts concerning Mr. Wankhede's illegal behaviour (or at least highly questionable behaviour) but as he is part of a system where honest officers have a hard time to keep honest (or have to face dire consequences for their honesty), I doubt that Mr. Wankhede will be prosecuted ... punished, yes (internally) ...his dishonesty made too much public waves.

Edited by Clochette - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: Clochette

Being innocent until proven guilty doesn't fit for Mr. Wankhede as he isn't innocent...he wasn't educated to be honest...

Ah, Clochette, if you and your friends are really being honest, you would admit that you don't really care if Sameer Wankhede actually fought to end the scourge of drug trafficking and organized crime, that you guys had no idea who Sameer Wankhede was before he arrested your idol, that you are feeling scorned ever since and going scorched earth trying to dig up something, anything, to paint Sameer as a corrupt officer with the fervent hope that the more successful you are in doing that, the more vindicated you would be in your position and the more spotless your idol would appear to the rest of the world.

FYI, presumption of innocence is a tenet of Indian criminal law so even if "innocent until proven guilty doesn't fit for Mr. Wankhede" in countries like North Korea or China or in some Muslim majority countries, it does very much so in India, fortunately for him and unfortunately for you.

Also, I didn't get the semantic association between presumption of innocence and education. Are you saying that the uneducated (assuming that the statement Wankhede is uneducated, along the lines of Wankhede is a devil worshiper, is true) are guilty even if innocent?

K.Universe, you're right in stating that I most probably would never have gotten to know Mr. Wankhede without what he helped doing to Aryan Khan (who is in no way my idol) and thus also helping to malign the father and giving unwarranted grief to the family.

However, I'm very much aware of the corruption that (unfortunately) is still  reigning in the governmental institutions...

As for the subject of education, I think you misunderstood (maybe I wasn't clear enough). If one is educated by a dishonest father there is a lot of probability that oneself tends to get a weakness for bending rules, especially in a position of power.

No, I don't think that being innocent until proven guilty should apply to Mr. Wankhede as he did not apply it to Aryan (neither did the respective first court). I even got the impression through all my reading about the judiciary in India that this thought is in a sorry state. But this is a problem in far too many countries and with far too many people.

Without knowing Mr. Wankhede I can still assert that he did something wrong in Aryan's case. What I don't know is, if he did it because he was told by more powerful people to do so and then messed up because Aryan was innocent. Therefore he inversed the assumption into "being guilty until proven innocent".

As I have no idol, I have no interest in making someone "spotless" (or "more spotless"), even not someone I love. Nobody is perfect, that's for sure. But I vehemently dislike it when people in powerful positions misuse their power, be it in a family, in a village, in school, in an office, in an enterprise, in the filmindustry, in a governmental institution, in whatever...

Edited by Clochette - 1 years ago